[FoRK] reas. conv. 11/28: "Religious" Beliefs

[Dr. Ernie Prabhakar]

Hi all,

Someone once claimed that all arguments are caused by disagreements  
over I) facts, II) values, or iII) semantics.  The corollary is that  
we also disagree about what we're disagreeing about.  :-)

With that in mind, let me jump back into the terminological  
discussion in Stephen's initial response, as I think that is central  
to much of this dispute:

Stephen wrote:
>> You're stretching the concepts far too much.  Science != faith.   
>> Hypothesis, theory, guess, and assumption are all distinctly  
>> different from faith.  All of these change when the evidence  
>> indicates.  Faith is not supposed to change regardless of the  
>> evidence or the perpetual lack thereof.  Beliefs of a modern  
>> person are at least partially rationality and science based, but  
>> if they are also faith based, then that person is operating on  
>> unproven and untestable information.

I think the problem is that we're each using the term "faith" to mean  
very different things. Yeah, I realize that "faith" in common usage  
often means something very much like what you are saying.  But I  
(like Strata) am trying to make a very different point, so let me see  
if I can find the right words to communicate that.

It might be helpful to realize that the term "religious belief" can  
refer to either to beliefs that are:

I) religious in _content_, i.e. "theological tenets"

	or

II) religious in _nature_, i.e. "a priori assumptions"

 From what I can tell, most of the complaints on this thread have  
been about religious dogmatism, with the implicit assumption that (I)  
always implies (II) -- and, for that matter, that (II) is primarily  
due to (I).

To be sure, the two are often correlated, but to equate the two is  
fallacious.  For one thing, as Malcolm (and one of his critics, I  
forget whom) pointed out, Communism is essentially "religious" in  
nature even though it has no deity per se (and in fact denies the  
existence of such).

Thus, the first comment I would make is that most of the complaints I  
have seen are really about type (II) religious beliefs, and apply  
equally well to non-theistic ideologies: nationalism, racism,  
marxism, technocratic elitism, etc.

The second point I would make, though, is that *all* communities have  
some implicit shared assumptions that (at least at some level) are  
type (II) "religious" in nature.   That is, certain things are held  
to be unquestionably true, often implicitly, and thus provide a basis  
for all other truth claims.

Now, you might argue that *your* beliefs are different, because  
(according to _your_ paradigm) those beliefs are perfectly reasonable  
-- in fact self-evidently so.  But, that is generally true of every  
group's worldview -- even those who claim not to have any such  
beliefs!  And please, don't tell me that you know your a priori  
beliefs are "true" because they are based on "science"; if there's  
one thing I learned while getting a Ph.D. in Physics from Caltech and  
an S.B. from MIT it is that scientists only *know* which theories are  
"more accurate" in a given domain, not which one is ultimately  
"right"; anything beyond that is really a matter of personal belief.

Which bring to me to my final point. Yes, I am perfectly aware that I  
myself have type (II) religious beliefs.  However, it may come as a  
shock for you to learn that these are NOT type (I) theological  
tenets.  Rather, my "a priori assumptions" are more-or-less secular  
propositions, as found at:

http://radicalcentrism.org/manifesto.html

I don't see these as having any explicit theistic bias, as I think  
many atheists could easily hold similar beliefs, and (except perhaps  
for Humility) I suspect most people would not find them unreasonable.

However, the important fact is that my type (I) belief in God and  
Christianity is *derived* from these type (II) assumptions.  Yes, as  
someone was perceptive enough to point out, this means that my  
understanding of God is a constructed *theory* -- a hypothesis, if  
you like.  Which makes my life -- including this dialogue! -- an  
experiment to test that theory.

After all, we never really know anything for sure; we just choose  
what to bet our lives on. I chose Love[1], which is why I choose  
Jesus.  I realize that it was a leap of faith -- like getting married 
[2], or taking a job[3] -- but like those grounded (at least in part)  
on both empirical data and logical reasoning.

All of which I'd be happy to lay out for your cross-examination -- if  
any of you are willing to do the same with your own type (II) beliefs.

Fair enough?

Cheers,
-- Ernie P.

[1] http://urlx.org/homepage.mac.com/6e788
[2] http://homepage.mac.com/drernie/engagement/
[3] http://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=19702

P.S.  Thanks for the kind words, Lucas & Malcolm.